My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services This morning, the Assistant Treasurer could not answer a question about a tobacco store being firebombed in his own electorate. Today, at 3.15 am, police responded to another firebombing—again in his own electorate. Five people who are now the victims of organised crime were inside the building on the first floor at the time of the incident. Why is the minister refusing to protect his own constituents by joining with the coalition to slash the tax and crush organised crime?

I'll get the member to stand by. We might have to reframe some of that question. If you stand by, I will hear from the Leader of the House.

The standing orders are quite clear that ministers can be questioned on their ministerial responsibility, but you are not questioned in your capacity as a local member of parliament, and that was the entirety of that question. Even the concept of rephrasing the entire question is completely out of order.

The difficulty we've got for this question is that I understand where the shadow minister is coming from, but it doesn't seem to be within the minister's responsibilities, because we can't assume that everyone knows what you're referring to. So you probably can assist the House by rephrasing the question about the minister's responsibilities rather than—

Order! I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

I understand the bit about refusing to protect his own constituents and the need for that to be reworded—

Order! The manager is going to be heard in silence. Get to your point.

With regard to the assistant minister's responsibilities, I take you to the Press Club, where he was asked a question about this. He said:

And can I just say on the tobacco excise firstly, we are working closely with jurisdictions right around Australia on this. We're working with all states and territories.

…   …   …

The ATO is examining it from a range of perspectives.

If he's happy to do that at the Press Club—

None of that was in the question. None of it.

I know, but we're just going to deal with this. Don't worry; we'll get there. But I didn't appreciate you also repeating the slur on the attack about the minister in that language. It's beneath the dignity of the House to accuse someone of that. That's not within his responsibility.

Okay, thank you. I didn't hear that part. It's good that you've now said that, but we don't need to repeat those sorts of slurs at the time, if that makes sense. The Leader of the House on a further point of order?

I've now had the chance to look at a live transcript of the question itself. I respect that, when a question involves some things that are out of order and some things that are not, you'll often ask for it be rephrased. There is not a single part of this question, other than the minister's title at the start, that goes to his ministerial responsibility. I put to you, Mr Speaker, that the concept of a rephrase has always been something that would be done where there were parts that were in and parts that were out. Where the entirety of the question is an abuse, I'd suggest there are other options available.

The manager?

The question says 'Slash the tax'. How is that not relevant to the Assistant Treasurer? It is just making a complete mockery of question time if you can't ask that.

We're going to help the House. I know the member for Mallee wants her question answered and I want to give her the right to ask her question, as she's entitled to do so. I'm going to ask her to remove the reflection on the minister in the first part of the question and rephrase the question, as the Leader of the House was indicating, to apply to what the minister is responsible for. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but she's ultimately saying: will the minister agree with the coalition's policy to remove the tax? That's, I think, where we're heading with this. We'll have that rephrased, in her words, as she would like.

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. This morning, the Assistant Treasurer could not answer a question about a tobacco store being firebombed in his electorate. Today at 3.15 am, police responded to another firebombing, again in his own electorate. Five people who are now the victims of organised crime were inside the building on the first floor at the time of the incident. Why is the minister refusing to protect Australians by joining with the coalition?

The problem that we just agreed on was not to have that part of the question. So just take that out and get to the question. If you don't do it quickly and I'm not satisfied, we will move on. I hope I'm crystal clear about what I would like in the question and what is within the standing orders.

Why will the minister refuse to join with the coalition to slash the tax and crush the organised crime gangs?

I thank the honourable member for the question, but I say from the outset that I did answer the question this morning and I answered it responsibly. I'll explain why it's important not just to have a responsible policy in relation to this complex issue but to deal with incidents like this morning responsibly. There was an incident this morning, but what would have been irresponsible was for me to speculate on live TV about what actually happened this morning and what might have driven it. That would have been highly irresponsible. What I can say is that the police have issued a statement that they are still investigating the incident and that no arrests have been made. For me to go beyond that would have been irresponsible.

What I did say in answering the question was that I do not want to see criminal incidents occurring in my electorate or anywhere, but what I also made clear was that our approach is the one that is going to reduce the likelihood of that. I quote the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner:

Lowering tax on its own is unlikely to resolve the criminal side of this market. It may compress price gaps to some extent but it does not remove demand, eliminate supply [or] underlying profit opportunities. They—

organised criminals—

can undercut prices no matter where we see the excise.

What we have said repeatedly is that a responsible approach to this is to continue our priority on enforcement, and that is delivering results. We have invested $365 million, and, as I said at the Press Club, we are working with other jurisdictions and we will continue to do so. We have seen ABF officers recently seize over 3.4 million illicit cigarettes, representing evaded duty of $5.3 million, and the Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group recently targeted over 100 servos across six jurisdictions. This is a complex issue, and we are dealing with it in a responsible way. Those opposite should have a responsible policy, and those opposite should deal with individual incidents responsibly and not deal with them in the way that that question did.

The member for Gippsland is seeking leave to table a document.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In his answer, the minister referred to a Victoria Police statement. I seek leave to table the statement 'Police investigate Sunshine Tobacco Shop fire'.

Leave not granted.